linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/6] UBI: Fastmap: Ensure that all fastmap work is done upon WL shutdown

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1417106877.5858.133.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com>
Date:	Thu, 27 Nov 2014 18:47:57 +0200
From:	Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>
To:	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
Cc:	linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/6] UBI: Fastmap: Ensure that all fastmap work is done
 upon WL shutdown

On Thu, 2014-11-27 at 17:35 +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Am 27.11.2014 um 17:29 schrieb Artem Bityutskiy:
> > On Thu, 2014-11-27 at 17:08 +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> >>> Obviously, there is some misunderstanding. This looks like lack of
> >>> separation and misuse of layering. I am missing explanations why I am
> >>> wrong...
> >>
> >> So you want me to use the UBI WL background thread for the scheduled fastmap work?
> > 
> > No. It is more like either use it or do not use it.
> 
> Sorry, I don't understand.
> What do you want to do to?

Just keep the code structured. I am just asking questions and trying to
to analyze your patches. If at some point I would like you to do
something specific, I clearly state this. In this case I was complaining
about fastmap specifics in an unrelated file, so basically the wish is
to have it go away. How exactly - not specified, up to you :-) Or, this
means just telling me why it is this way, justify.

When I was working with this code, I did give people specific
suggestions, line-by-line. Now I am more doing more of a sanity check,
looking after the bigger picture.

I understand that this is not a picture of an ideal maintainer, and I am
not anymore an ideal maintainer for this stuff (I think I used to,
though), simply because of lack of time. Doing the best effort job now.

> >> I didn't do it that way because you said more than once that fastmap is fastmap and
> >> WL is WL. Therefore I've separated it.
> > 
> > And "separated" meaning adding this code to wl.c?
> > 
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_MTD_UBI_FASTMAP
> > +       flush_work(&ubi->fm_work);
> > +#endif
> > 
> > Could it be separated some more then?
> > 
> 
> Of course, commit "UBI: Move fastmap specific functions out of wl.c" does.

I did not see it in this series. So you could tell this earlier, not
after 2 e-mail exchanges. Do not assume I remember the details of our
previous discussion. Assume I forgot everything :-)

> But this commit is *bugfix* commit.

I thought adding an close function to fastmap.c is a simple task.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/